Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
I will not question that last statement. I believe it to be true. But I believe that the vast majority of men have so much spiritual static and have so much of their own egos and personal lusts in the way that the Spirit doesn't get through. I have been to many Bible studies both Catholic and non-Catholic; and I've talked with well-meaning non Catholics and it is very obvious that many of them are not being led by the Spirit to their conclusions.
I have had the unfortunate experience of having had a distant relative committed to mental hospital in my home town. While visiting her, I have had the privilege of meeting Jesus Christ (probably a dozen of them), John the Baptist (twice), Napolean, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and either Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield. The little voices told them, too.
How can one show that it is the Spirit moving through them, and not demonic voices or internal whims? Even Satan can quote Scripture for his own ends. Answer: the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - the one that Jesus Christ founded. Jesus did not leave Scripture. He left His Church that the gates of Hell will not prevail against.
I do not intend to say that all non Catholics are driven by the Devil; rather that the Devil delights in the creation of multiple churches rather than the One Church and in the private interpretation of Scripture rather than the One Church's teachings. That way, the message is garbled, people can be subtly misled and therefore trapped eternally in Hell. After all, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Where is the office of the "priest" found in the New Testament??? It's not there, just like holy water and purgatory are not there.
As opposed to the hubris of creating one's own theology?
How is your belief different from what an occupant of the loony bin believes?
As Uncle Chip phrases it, the issue is not practice, but origin. Uncle Chip's argument seems to be that because other religions performed ceremonial lustrations before Christians did, therefore the origin sort of has more corrupting mojo, which overpowers the feeble Holy Spirit's (as THEY, not I, seem to say) efforts to redeem.
Then if we were able to find evidence of prayer on the part of people outside the Judeo-Christian tradition would that show that prayer was somehow wrong for us because it was of pagan origin? Well, prayer is mentioned in the Bible, so presumably that certifies that in that case the Holy Spirit is able to handle its use by pagans.
However the Bible has numerous references to water sprinkled with hyssop as a ritual or cultic cleansing rather than merely a practical or sanitary cleansing -- though the distinction back then was not as bold and clear as it is now.
Nevertheless, the use of water for cultic lustration in the Bible does NOT, ah, purge away it's pagan origin, while the use of prayer in the Bible does purge away its cultic origin.
So what other objective difference can we find? Well, the obvious one is that these days the most frequent cultic use of water for ceremonial cleansing is in the Catholic Church. That seems to be the principle and operative difference between lustration and prayer. Both were done first by pagans. Both are in the Bible. But one is not done by Protestants.
So the argument comes down to "Catholics are wrong because they use practices used by Catholics, who, as we all know, are wrong."
Circle the arguments, uh, I mean, wagons!
Luther, Zwingli and Calvin turned their backs on the Church and set up their own, paving the way for the creation of multiple churches. The mainstream Protestant churches - the Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist etc. - were also found wanting and thus the American Restoration movement was formed, which created Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others.
Now we have the New Testament types who are increasingly independent in forming their own theologies.
All completely independent from each other. All differing either slightly or grossly from each other. The Church that Jesus left on earth had the authority to ensure doctrinal purity. Acts and the Epistles document extensively the authority that the Apostles and the early Church officials had to deal with the individual church communities across the known world in correcting, instructing, admonishing and directing them.
There is no independence in God's church. It's not the rules of the individual. It's His rules. We cannot make it up as we go along.
So? Round and round we go! You guys think that the promise of Christ to his Church expired sometime between, say 65 A.D. and 110 A.D. We don't. And yet you say WE don't trust Christ, and exchange high fives as you declare that someting we do isn't in Scripture. I don't see ice cream socials and churches with indoor pools, or even pulpits in Scripture, but my knickers remain in their original and comfortable untwisted condition. (Well, maybe pulpits ...)
I see no way to settle this. We continually and openly talk about a development, refinement, adumbration, and all like that there of doctrine beyond the seminal declarations of Scripture. Then y'all rear back, gasping in shocked outrage, and declare that after much research you have discovered that we do exactly what we say we do! Well bust my buttons!
Yep. We trust in God's guidance of the extremely sinful, froward, wayward, "perverse and foolish", etc. people redeemed in and through the ministrations of his Church. We are guilty as charged, and we throw ourselves on the mercy of the Father, but not of the Protestants.
Haul out your analytical concordance and check out presbyteros. We would say that, yes, there was some definition and distinction between presbyter and bishop, and a development and articulation of their roles and of the relationship of those roles to the hieratic ministry of our Lord. If you do another word study on apostolos then it is not beyond reason that there would be a kind of sharing of hieratic ministry with the elders of the Church.
I fear that was too muddy, but I did my best.
You must remember, sir, that Uncle Chip has an extremely abridged Bible. It is beyond his acceptance that we use the portions of the Bible that he doesn't use.
Also remember that he rejects Jesus' divine nature whilst on Earth. He has not yet replied to my direct questions, but from what I gather, he believes that Jesus was only human on earth, but has been resurrected into a god-like state. As will be all those who are resurrected. Sounds like LDS beliefs to me.
But he has not referred to the Book of Mormon yet. I'm still trying to understand what he believes Sacred Scripture to be. And what it's composed of.
Is the water sprinkled with the hyssop or is the blood or blood diluted with water sprinkled with the hyssop?
But it is true of the early Church.
What's your answer to your question? And if you have an answer, why ask me?
It seems in one reference that blood is involved, though whether it's blood diluted with water or water with blood in it - in other words the ratio of blood to water - is not clear. In another reference it seems that the ashes of the sacrifice and some other stuff (red yarn) are involved.
I maintain that the argumentative circularity, which is my main point, applies in either case.
Oh really?? Here is what the link at #2188 says. Note the qualifying words in bold[mine]. I just love the game these apologists play. They make a statement and then take it away. It's called a qualified lie:
"The use of holy water in Catholic Churches goes back possibly to Apostolic times. There is a tradition that St. Matthew recommended it in order thereby to attract converts from Judaism by using a rite with which they were familiar in their former faith. However, we have no certainty that he introduced it, but we know that it can be traced back nearly to the beginning of our religion. It is mentioned in a letter ascribed by some to Pope Alexander I, and supposed to have been written in the year 117; but the genuineness of this letter is very doubtful.... We find a detailed account of its use, however, in the "Pontifical of Serapion," in the fourth century, and the formula of blessing mentioned therein has considerable resemblance to that used at the present day.... "The Asperges. The blessing of water [at] Mass on Sunday and the sprinkling of the congregation with it, which ceremony is called the "Asperges," goes back to the time of Pope Leo IV, in the ninth century, and possibly even further. "
So there is no evidence that it was used until the 4th century at the earliest and possibly not until the 9th century. So when you say "the early church", you must mean the early Roman Catholic Church which was founded in the 4th century and took shape over the next few centuries.
Clearly you have me confused with someone else. I will accept your apology should you choose to post it.
Golly, for you guys that's overwhelming evidence!
But that's exactly what you do...Praying to Mary...Holy Water...Apparitions...Purgatory...Limbo...
Your church is based on tons of things that aren't scriptural...Then you call it 'tradition' which you say supercedes the word of God...
We did not become Christians because of your church...We are Christians because we ultimately heard the word of God from the bible...And it doesn't come any where near resembling your religion...We becaume Christians without your tradition...
You appear to claim that the Holy Spitit does not lead individuals to truth...Only your 'holy priesthood' is taught truth by the Holy Spirit...And it doesn't come from the bible...Is that an admission that the Holy Spirit does not dwell within you??? How do you know that it's not Satan leading your Magisterium??? Fact is, you don't...
9th century?
No, the article says that "We find a detailed account of its use, however, in the "Pontifical of Serapion," in the fourth century, and the formula of blessing mentioned therein has considerable resemblance to that used at the present day." A detailed account of its use. That means that it was already in wide practice at this point in time.
Now, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07432a.htm says that:
The use of holy water in the earliest days of the Christian Era is attested by documents of only comparatively late date. The "Apostolic Constitutions", the redaction of which goes back to about the year 400, attribute to the Apostle St. Matthew the precept of using holy water. The letter written under the name of Pope Alexander I, who lived in the second century, is apocryphal and of more recent times; hence the first historical testimony does not go back beyond the fifth century.
and
The use of holy water in the earliest days of the Christian Era is attested by documents of only comparatively late date. The "Apostolic Constitutions", the redaction of which goes back to about the year 400, attribute to the Apostle St. Matthew the precept of using holy water. The letter written under the name of Pope Alexander I, who lived in the second century, is apocryphal and of more recent times; hence the first historical testimony does not go back beyond the fifth century.
and
As early as the fourth century various writings, the authenticity of which is free from suspicion, mention the use of water sanctified either by the liturgical blessing just referred to, or by the individual blessing of some holy person. St. Epiphanius (Contra haeres., lib. I, haer. xxx) records that at Tiberias a man named Joseph poured water on a madman, having first made the sign of the cross and pronounced these words over the water: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, crucified, depart from this unhappy one, thou infernal spirit, and let him be healed!" Joseph was converted an subsequently used the same proceeding to overcome witchcraft; yet, he was neither a bishop nor a cleric. Theodoret (Hist. eccl., V, xxi) relates that Marcellus, Bishop of Apamea, sanctified water by the sign of the cross and that Aphraates cured one of the emperor's horses by making it drink water blessed by the sign of the cross ("Hist. relig.", c. viii, in P.G., LXXXII, col. 1244, 1375). In the West similar attestations are made. Gregory of Tours (De gloria confess., c. 82) tells of a recluse named Eusitius who lived in the sixth century and possessed the power of curing quartan fever by giving its victims to drink of water that he had blessed; we might mention many other instances treasured up by this same Gregory ("De Miraculis S. Martini", II, xxxix; "Mirac. S. Juliani", II, iii, xxv, xxvi; "Liber de Passione S. Juliani"; "Vitae Patrum", c. iv, n. 3). It is known that some of the faithful believed that holy water possessed curative properties for certain diseases, and that this was true in a special manner of baptismal water. In some places it was carefully preserved throughout the year and, by reason of its having been used in baptism, was considered free from all corruption. This belief spread from East to West; and scarcely had baptism been administered, when the people would crown around with all sorts of vessels and take away the water, some keeping it carefully in their homes whilst others watered their fields, vineyards, and gardens with it ("Ordo rom. I", 42, in "Mus. ital.", II, 26).
However, baptismal water was not the only holy water. Some was permanently retained at the entrance to Christian churches where a clerk sprinkled the faithful as they came in and, for this reason, was called hydrokometes or "introducer by water", an appellation that appears in the superscription of a letter of Synesius in which allusion is made to "lustral water placed in the vestibule of the temple". This water was perhaps blessed in proportion as it was needed, and the custom of the Church may have varied on this point. Balsamon tells us that, in the Greek Church, they "made" holy water at the beginning of each lunar month. It is quite possible that, according to canon 65 of the Council of Constantinople held in 691, this rite was established for the purpose of definitively supplanting the pagan feast of the new moon and causing it to pass into oblivion. In the West Dom Martène declares that nothing was found prior to the ninth century concerning the blessing and aspersion of water that takes place every Sunday at Mass. At that time Pope Leo IV ordered that each priest bless water every Sunday in his own church and sprinkle the people with it: "Omni die Dominico, ante missam, aquam benedictam facite, unde populus et loca fidelium aspergantur" (P.L., CXV, col. 679). Hincmar of Reims gave directions as follows: "Every Sunday, before the celebration of Mass, the priest shall bless water in his church, and, for this holy purpose, he shall use a clean and suitable vessel. The people, when entering the church, are to be sprinkled with this water, and those who so desire may carry some away in clean vessels so as to sprinkle their houses, fields, vineyards, and cattle, and the provender with which these last are fed, as also to throw over their own food" ("Capitula synodalia", cap. v, in P.L., CXXV, col, 774). The rule of having water blessed for the aspersion at Mass on Sunday was thenceforth generally followed, but the exact time set by Leo IV and Hincmar was not everywhere observed. At Tours, the blessing took place on Saturday before Vespers; at Cambrai and at Aras, it was to be given without ceremony in the sacristy before the recitation of the hour of Prime; at Albi, in the fifteenth century, the ceremony was conducted in the sacristy before Terce; and at Soissons, on the highest of the sanctuary steps, before Terce; whereas at Laon and Senlis, in the fourteenth century, it took place in the choir before the hour of Terce. There are two Sundays on which water is not and seems never to be blessed: these are Easter Sunday and Pentecost. The reason is because on the eve of these two feasts water for the baptismal fonts is blessed and consecrated and, before its mixture with the holy chrism, the faithful are allowed to take some of it to their homes, and keep it for use in time of need.
------
It isn't a game. It's real and serious. I don't understand why you would play chicken with your soul taking the stances that you do.
We rely on the Church that Jesus Christ founded. It is the Pillar of Truth. Jesus himself says to go to the Church. The Church guides, admonishes, teaches and is the hands of God here on Earth.
It has the authority to do His will. Remember the story of the eunuch attempting to read Scripture. At least the eunuch had the sense to accept the guidance of one authorized to teach. I see a lot of eunuchs that are missing that sense.
"Holy Spitit" indeed!
I don't get how you guys claim the leadership of the Holy Spirit when basic reasoning is so infrequently used by you all. There is a disticntion between gifts of the Spirit and the Spirit Himself.
I've said it numerous times on this thread and have yet to see it addressed. The Bible (it's an interesting book, you may have heard of it) quite clearly states that not everyone has all the gifts of the Spirit, but gifts are spread around, with one person having this gift and another not having this gift but having that gift.
Consequently there is no connection whatsoever between acknowledging that somebody else has gifts having to do with discernment and teaching and saying that I have no portion of the Holy Spirit. Paul distinguishes between gifts and the Spirit which gives them. YOU all are disagreeing with Paul, as it seems to me, not us.
And of course there's the problem , and it's just a problem, I'm not claiming to have a devastating rejoinder here, of how people became Christians before there was a Bible? But we've been over that so many times.
We becaume Christians without your tradition...
The Bible itself is a tradition of the Church. I know you don't agree, I've read the articulations of the opposing viewpoints. None of them persuade.
But at least you make as clear as can be that the real defining and motivating principle for many (by no means for all) Protestants is nothing other than hatred of the catholic church. You claim a Spirit of Truth but then put up the ludicrous article which charges us with teaching what we do not teach. Any stick, -- the stick doesn't even have to exist -- ANY stick will do. Don't you see that as long as you support this article, you cannot be considered a source of anything reliable?
My fingers stuttered. Please crunch #2319? Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.